Coleman v. National Community Reinvestment Coalition

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
ELLIOTTE PATRICK COLEMAN,
Debtor.
____________________________
ELLIOTTE PATRICK COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT COALITION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 06-00254
(Chapter 13)
Adversary Proceeding No.
07-10023
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE (1) DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND
(2) DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
The defendant National Community Reinvestment Coalition
(“NCRC”) served discovery on the plaintiff Elliotte Patrick
Coleman on December 11, 2007, and, when Coleman denied receiving
the discovery, re-served it on him on February 25, 2008. 	Even
viewing February 25, 2008, as the date of service, Coleman’s
responses would have been due March 31, 2009. 	He failed to file
responses to that discovery until April 4, 2009. 	The facts set
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: May 11, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-10023 Doc 86 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:55:37 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
forth in NCRC’s request for admissions were thus admitted.
NCRC’s discovery also included interrogatories and a request
for production of documents. 	With a discovery completion
deadline of April 18, 2008, looming, NCRC filed a Motion to
Compel Discovery and for Sanctions on March 20, 2008 (Docket
Entry (“DE”) No. 56). 	Coleman failed to file an opposition to
the motion. 	Coleman did not respond to the discovery until April
4, 2008, more than thirty days after both the initial service of
the discovery on December 11, 2007, and the re-service of the
discovery on February 25, 2008. 	The motion is moot except for
the request (renewed in a second unopposed motion addressed
below) that the request for admissions be admitted, and the
question of sanctions. 	With the deadline for completing
discovery looming, NCRC was fully justified in filing its motion,
Case 07-10023 Doc 86 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:55:37 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

1 	Coleman contended, in reply to the opposition to his own
motion to compel discovery (an opposition in which NCRC pointed
to Coleman’s long delay in responding to NCRC’s discovery served
December 11, 2007), that NCRC had failed to serve him on December
11, 2007. 	But Coleman never responded to NCRC’s Motion to Compel
Discovery and for Sanctions, and I will assume that he decided
not to further pursue his contention that the discovery was not
served on December 11, 2007. 	If Coleman had raised the
contention in an opposition to NCRC’s Motion, NCRC would have
been entitled to file a reply (which could have included an
affidavit of the attorney who served NCRC’s discovery papers
attesting to their being served on December 11, 2007). 	In any
event, Coleman concedes that he was served on February 25, 2008,
and cannot dispute that he failed to timely respond regardless of
whether December 11, 2007, or February 25, 2008, is used as the
date of service. 	If Coleman had answered the discovery within 30
days after the re-service on February 25, 2008, and indeed had
not received the discovery when it was served on December 11,
2007, that might have been a factor in favor of not imposing
sanctions, but he was late even using the February 25, 2008 date.
Coleman never sought an enlargement from the court of time for
responding to the discovery.
3
and Coleman has not shown that sanctions are unwarranted. 1
The responses to interrogatories and to the request for
production of documents were deficient, leading NCRC to file its
Second Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (assigned DE Nos. 63
and 65). 	Coleman has failed to file an opposition to that
motion, and it sets forth good grounds for granting the motion.
It is thus
ORDERED that, as requested in both motions, each of the
Defendant’s Requests for Admission are deemed admitted. 	It is
further
ORDERED that the defendant NCRC is granted its reasonable
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in
Case 07-10023 Doc 86 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:55:37 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Coleman vs National Community Reinvest't Coalition - Mem Dec & Order re NCRC Mtn to Compel Discoveryv2.wpd
pursuing the Defendant’s 	Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (DE
No. 56), and that the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions is dismissed as moot with respect to the request to
order Coleman to file answers to interrogatories and a response
to the request to produce documents. 	It is further
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Second Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions (assigned DE Nos. 63 and 65) is GRANTED. 	It is further
ORDERED that the defendant NCRC is granted its reasonable
expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in
pursuing the Defendant’s Second Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions. 	It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff Coleman shall provide full and
complete responses to the defendant’s Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents, as identified in NCRC’s
counsel’s letter of April 17, 2008, to plaintiff, no later than
May 25, 2009. 	It is further
ORDERED that the defendant NCRC may file a statement of its
reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees,
incurred in pursuing the two aforesaid Motions within 28 days
after entry of this order, and that the plaintiff Coleman may
file an opposition to the reasonableness of those expenses within
21 days after the filing of the same.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record; Cynthia A. Niklas, Chapter 13
Trustee; Office of U.S. Trustee.
Case 07-10023 Doc 86 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:55:37 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4